Author
Topic: Question for Byzantine Catholics? (Read 25038 times)

I suspect that the readers of this thread are getting tired of hearing from me on the issue of imposed latinizations -- I say this because I'm even getting tired of myself. So I'm going to try to summarize my position in one post and not drag things out any further.

First, I agree with what Deacon Lance pointed out several days ago: many latinizations have been voluntarily adopted by the EC Churches.

Nevertheless, I also believe that the practice of every Eastern bishop commemorating the Pope is a latinization, and since it is imposed I call it an imposed latinization.

I realize some people don't want me to say "imposed latinization" because that has a negative connotation. I suppose I could instead say "mandated latinization" or "involuntary latinization", although I'm not sure if those have any less of a negative connotation.

I'm willing to listen to anyone's arguments, if they believe that it isn't a latinization or that it isn't imposed, but I don't think just saying that "imposed latinization" has a negative connotation counts as an argument.

I suspect that the readers of this thread are getting tired of hearing from me on the issue of imposed latinizations -- I say this because I'm even getting tired of myself. So I'm going to try to summarize my position in one post and not drag things out any further.

First, I agree with what Deacon Lance pointed out several days ago: many latinizations have been voluntarily adopted by the EC Churches.

Nevertheless, I also believe that the practice of every Eastern bishop commemorating the Pope is a latinization, and since it is imposed I call it an imposed latinization.

I realize some people don't want me to say "imposed latinization" because that has a negative connotation. I suppose I could instead say "mandated latinization" or "involuntary latinization", although I'm not sure if those have any less of a negative connotation.

I'm willing to listen to anyone's arguments, if they believe that it isn't a latinization or that it isn't imposed, but I don't think just saying that "imposed latinization" has a negative connotation counts as an argument.

While I understand that there are truly some "latinizations" out there that need to be corrected, I don't think what you are talking about is a latinization as much as a "Catholicization". It's done to show that the particular parish is Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

#.... that church is full of all different types of peoples.......which one's 'opinion' are you looking for?.........'those to whom Sts. Cyril & Methodius went'[orthodox in catholic communion]'Old Faith'.................../ or the one's john paul ll called; 1.cast off latinization 2.return to your tradition 3.be an authenic eastern wittness 4.'listen' to those to whom Sts. Cyril & Methodius went .......then after some time he also called them........ 5. Why isn't anybody doing anything?................./ or maybe it's the uncountable different latin groops starting or supporting there own selfstylled religious intrigue( i was approched by an antipope groop, sent by an outside latin entity from vat. 2 brake-a-way ).................. so? who do you want to hear from?.................

While I understand that there are truly some "latinizations" out there that need to be corrected, I don't think what you are talking about is a latinization as much as a "Catholicization". It's done to show that the particular parish is Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox.

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic. It says that Greek Catholics for example are to accept all Catholic defined doctrines but their calling is to express them in Orthodox terms, in order to show the Orthodox it can be done and thus end the schism. The educated Orthodox on this board say it's impossible to reconcile some Catholic doctrine with Orthodoxy, which is why they're Orthodox. Believing it's possible doesn't make the Catholic Church a liar. Just wrong from your point of view.

My view is the only real difference is about the nature and scope of the papacy. Orthodox have no problem with the Pope as the head of the 'college' of patriarchs – they venerate pre-schism Popes as Popes. Catholicism and Orthodoxy agree the episcopate is of divine origin and the church is infallible. (As, for example, the Anglicans' Articles XIX and XXI teach, Protestants believe the church is fallible; liberal or conservative, in the end the individual believer decides what's right: 'what I think the Bible teaches'.) But the Orthodox see the Pope's office as just like an Orthodox patriarch's, a man-made rank. (In other words bishops are essential to the church; the papacy or the Patriarchate of Moscow, etc., are not.) Catholicism says the Pope's a unique kind of bishop; his office is a function of church infallibility under rare circumstances. There's no reconciling these positions; one side would have to give into the other, declaring the other side the true church and joining it. That's why the Greek Catholic churches exist and why online and other hardline Orthodox rail against ecumenism. Understandable when you think the true church is at stake. (And when Catholicism outnumbers you worldwide, and when Islam and Communism historically have long limited your power.)

Yet that disputed claim, because both churches claim it, also means the two churches understand each other; Protestants understand neither. When Pope Benedict XVI repeated the claim that Catholicism is the church, the mainline (old liberal) Protestant denominations and the secular humanists complained. The Russian Orthodox Church wasn't upset, because they understood him, and Russian men tend not to act like little girls.

Most born Greek Catholics, to whom the original post was addressed, don't think about and express Catholic doctrine in Orthodox terms. That's something seminary professors and crossovers from the Roman Rite who write on message boards do. The cradles think like Latin Catholics.

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic.

I'd like to chime on this point. Yes, it's true that the pope doesn't say to potential Catholics "If you want to come into Catholicism, you don't need to believe [IC/PI/UOJ/etc]."

But it's important to see that from (at least) two different perspectives: not only a CDF doctrinal-orthodoxy kind of perspective, but also from an "ecumenical" perspective. Or more specifically, it's important to keep in mind what the Balamand Statement said, "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (i.e. from Orthodoxy to Catholicism).

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic.

I'd like to chime on this point. Yes, it's true that the pope doesn't say to potential Catholics "If you want to come into Catholicism, you don't need to believe [IC/PI/UOJ/etc]."

But it's important to see that from (at least) two different perspectives: not only a CDF doctrinal-orthodoxy kind of perspective, but also from an "ecumenical" perspective. Or more specifically, it's important to keep in mind what the Balamand Statement said, "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (i.e. from Orthodoxy to Catholicism).

Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. So while of course Catholicism accepts individual conversions, quietly, because of the true-church claim, Catholicism's goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion; with that in mind, it doesn't solicit individual conversions.

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic.

I'd like to chime on this point. Yes, it's true that the pope doesn't say to potential Catholics "If you want to come into Catholicism, you don't need to believe [IC/PI/UOJ/etc]."

But it's important to see that from (at least) two different perspectives: not only a CDF doctrinal-orthodoxy kind of perspective, but also from an "ecumenical" perspective. Or more specifically, it's important to keep in mind what the Balamand Statement said, "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (i.e. from Orthodoxy to Catholicism).

Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. So while of course Catholicism accepts individual conversions, quietly, because of the true-church claim, Catholicism's goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion; with that in mind, it doesn't solicit individual conversions.

How about the conversion of individual Churches?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic.

I'd like to chime on this point. Yes, it's true that the pope doesn't say to potential Catholics "If you want to come into Catholicism, you don't need to believe [IC/PI/UOJ/etc]."

But it's important to see that from (at least) two different perspectives: not only a CDF doctrinal-orthodoxy kind of perspective, but also from an "ecumenical" perspective. Or more specifically, it's important to keep in mind what the Balamand Statement said, "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (i.e. from Orthodoxy to Catholicism).

Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. So while of course Catholicism accepts individual conversions, quietly, because of the true-church claim, Catholicism's goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion; with that in mind, it doesn't solicit individual conversions.

How about the conversion of individual Churches?

My guess is it's the same principle. It accepts them but the goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion.

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic.

I'd like to chime on this point. Yes, it's true that the pope doesn't say to potential Catholics "If you want to come into Catholicism, you don't need to believe [IC/PI/UOJ/etc]."

But it's important to see that from (at least) two different perspectives: not only a CDF doctrinal-orthodoxy kind of perspective, but also from an "ecumenical" perspective. Or more specifically, it's important to keep in mind what the Balamand Statement said, "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (i.e. from Orthodoxy to Catholicism).

Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. So while of course Catholicism accepts individual conversions, quietly, because of the true-church claim, Catholicism's goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion; with that in mind, it doesn't solicit individual conversions.

How about the conversion of individual Churches?

I believe that the Macedonian Orthodox Church sought recognition from the Vatican, but the Vatican recommended that they get recognition from the Orthodox Church instead.

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic.

I'd like to chime on this point. Yes, it's true that the pope doesn't say to potential Catholics "If you want to come into Catholicism, you don't need to believe [IC/PI/UOJ/etc]."

But it's important to see that from (at least) two different perspectives: not only a CDF doctrinal-orthodoxy kind of perspective, but also from an "ecumenical" perspective. Or more specifically, it's important to keep in mind what the Balamand Statement said, "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (i.e. from Orthodoxy to Catholicism).

Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. So while of course Catholicism accepts individual conversions, quietly, because of the true-church claim, Catholicism's goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion; with that in mind, it doesn't solicit individual conversions.

How about the conversion of individual Churches?

My guess is it's the same principle. It accepts them but the goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion.

The motivation for the change of approach does definitely entail a recognition that past tactics have not worked. But I'd to ask: is that all that it entails? I'd like to think that it is also motivated by a switch to a more ecumenical mindset.

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic.

I'd like to chime on this point. Yes, it's true that the pope doesn't say to potential Catholics "If you want to come into Catholicism, you don't need to believe [IC/PI/UOJ/etc]."

But it's important to see that from (at least) two different perspectives: not only a CDF doctrinal-orthodoxy kind of perspective, but also from an "ecumenical" perspective. Or more specifically, it's important to keep in mind what the Balamand Statement said, "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (i.e. from Orthodoxy to Catholicism).

Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. So while of course Catholicism accepts individual conversions, quietly, because of the true-church claim, Catholicism's goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion; with that in mind, it doesn't solicit individual conversions.

How about the conversion of individual Churches?

My guess is it's the same principle. It accepts them but the goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion.

The motivation for the change of approach does definitely entail a recognition that past tactics have not worked. But I'd to ask: is that all that it entails? I'd like to think that it is also motivated by a switch to a more ecumenical mindset.

Yes but you have to define 'ecumenical' here, because Catholicism, like Orthodoxy, claims it's the true church so a relativism that says all churches are equal and true is out of the question. (Why 'ecumenist' is a fightin' word in online Orthodoxy.)

Catholics may have solicited individual conversions more in the past (see below), but Catholicism's plan has always been to persuade all the Orthodox to come back, with accepting whole regional churches as a step in that direction. After all, that's what Ferrara-Florence was about. Arguably the Balkan peoples rejected it (the Orthodox narrative) but Byzantium's last emperor died a Catholic; the Turks restarted the schism officially, I think in 1473. (Because like the Communists 450 years later, they didn't want a church they couldn't control.) The Russians claimed God punished Byzantium for becoming Catholic so they were the true Rome, defending Orthodoxy.

Anyway, regional churches: the first unia, founding the Ukrainian Catholic Church in 1596, was at first very successful: basically most of Russian Orthodoxy outside Great Russia (Moscow). Not only most of the Ukraine including Kiev and its metropolitan but Byelorussia too. Great Russian expansion and persecution shrank it later, to Polish Galicia (Lvov), now the western Ukraine, the Ukrainian Catholic Church's homeland today. Arguably the Melkite one, in 1724 (?), was too. (Until I read this thread I didn't know the claim that they didn't become Catholic until 1729; I think the Catholic narrative says '24.)

Worth noting: attempts at individually converting the Orthodox that flopped. Namely in Orthodoxy's main homelands, Greece and Russia. Both about 100 years ago. The French Assumptionist order of priests set up Greek Catholic churches in Greece, which failed. There are more Roman Riters in Greece (on islands Italy used to own) than Greek Catholics. In 1890s Russia some intelligentsia read their way into Catholicism so the Pope started the Russian Greek Catholic Church. Whopping failure, next to nobody joined, plus the Communists crushed what little of it there was.

Back to 'a more ecumenical mindset': I think there's been a development of the Catholic view that born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. A nuance that's fair to the Orthodox without compromising Catholicism's true-church claim. Namely, changing from the view that while Orthodox have valid bishops, they have no jurisdiction even over their own people, and that while the Orthodox Eucharist, etc. are valid, the state of schism makes receiving those sacraments a sin. Not what Catholicism says now. The majority opinion is that born Orthodox, not personally guilty of schism, have episcopal jurisdiction, apostolic authority, and the grace of the sacraments among themselves (people who never personally left the Catholic Church receiving those sacraments in good faith). They're an estranged part of Catholicism.

The recent story about Macedonia reminds me of 19th-century Bulgaria. The Orthodox there wanted to be independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople as part of being free from the Ottoman Empire (Turks), so they approached the Catholic Church, which set up a Bulgarian Catholic Church. But the Bulgarians mostly left that and became then-uncanonical autocephalous Orthodox (a rift with C'ople until 1946); the Bulgarian Catholic Church was/is tiny. Maybe in Macedonia the Catholics didn't want to get screwed again. Come to think of it, the Macedonian Orthodox Church wasn't started as part of Macedonian independence. I think Communist Yugoslavia started it in 1967; it's uncanonical in Orthodoxy like the Bulgarian Church used to be.

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic.

I'd like to chime on this point. Yes, it's true that the pope doesn't say to potential Catholics "If you want to come into Catholicism, you don't need to believe [IC/PI/UOJ/etc]."

But it's important to see that from (at least) two different perspectives: not only a CDF doctrinal-orthodoxy kind of perspective, but also from an "ecumenical" perspective. Or more specifically, it's important to keep in mind what the Balamand Statement said, "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (i.e. from Orthodoxy to Catholicism).

Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. So while of course Catholicism accepts individual conversions, quietly, because of the true-church claim, Catholicism's goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion; with that in mind, it doesn't solicit individual conversions.

How about the conversion of individual Churches?

My guess is it's the same principle. It accepts them but the goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion.

An Arab tale:On a cold day a hunter went out and came upon two birds perched on a tree, and the cold had made his eyes tear.As he raised his gun, one bird said "Don't worry! He won't shoot! Look at his eyes! He's weeping!"The other, seeing the finger on the trigger, said "Don't look at what his eyes are doing! Look at what his hands are doing!"

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Catholics may have solicited individual conversions more in the past (see below), but Catholicism's plan has always been to persuade all the Orthodox to come back, with accepting whole regional churches as a step in that direction. After all, that's what Ferrara-Florence was about. Arguably the Balkan peoples rejected it (the Orthodox narrative) but Byzantium's last emperor died a Catholic;

There were enough Byzantine Emperors that died as Arians or Iconoclasts.

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic.

I'd like to chime on this point. Yes, it's true that the pope doesn't say to potential Catholics "If you want to come into Catholicism, you don't need to believe [IC/PI/UOJ/etc]."

But it's important to see that from (at least) two different perspectives: not only a CDF doctrinal-orthodoxy kind of perspective, but also from an "ecumenical" perspective. Or more specifically, it's important to keep in mind what the Balamand Statement said, "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (i.e. from Orthodoxy to Catholicism).

Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. So while of course Catholicism accepts individual conversions, quietly, because of the true-church claim, Catholicism's goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion; with that in mind, it doesn't solicit individual conversions.

How about the conversion of individual Churches?

My guess is it's the same principle. It accepts them but the goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion.

An Arab tale:On a cold day a hunter went out and came upon two birds perched on a tree, and the cold had made his eyes tear.As he raised his gun, one bird said "Don't worry! He won't shoot! Look at his eyes! He's weeping!"The other, seeing the finger on the trigger, said "Don't look at what his eyes are doing! Look at what his hands are doing!"

Good catch. Thanks for the reminder. Rome didn't want the Ukrainian Catholic Church to make this aggressive move of moving their headquarters to Kiev. But they did and got away with it. It doesn't go against Catholic doctrine but to me seems insubordinate; maybe the Major Archbishop responsible should have been fired. It goes against Catholicism's strategy with the Orthodox. But considering their recent history - being outlawed and having the government trying to push them into the state-controlled Orthodox church - Ukrainian Catholics understandably aren't interested in good relations with the Orthodox. I don't like what they've done either, and they probably won't get what they want, becoming the country's state or at least national church, with the majority. But I admire their guts. (Their 20th-century story of survival and resurrection is heroic. How to survive modern persecution. Take notes.)

But the Bulgarians mostly left that and became then-uncanonical autocephalous Orthodox (a rift with C'ople until 1946)

The Bulgarian Exarchate wasn't uncanonical unless you buy into the idea that the EP is some sort of Pope. The Exarchists were always in communion with St. Petersburg.

I do believe it.

Good point about Bulgaria. The autocephaly was uncanonical at first. Right, C'ople's not a Pope, but a church's mother church must grant the autocephaly for it to be canonical. But the Bulgarians were still in the official Orthodox Church.

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic.

I'd like to chime on this point. Yes, it's true that the pope doesn't say to potential Catholics "If you want to come into Catholicism, you don't need to believe [IC/PI/UOJ/etc]."

But it's important to see that from (at least) two different perspectives: not only a CDF doctrinal-orthodoxy kind of perspective, but also from an "ecumenical" perspective. Or more specifically, it's important to keep in mind what the Balamand Statement said, "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (i.e. from Orthodoxy to Catholicism).

Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. So while of course Catholicism accepts individual conversions, quietly, because of the true-church claim, Catholicism's goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion; with that in mind, it doesn't solicit individual conversions.

How about the conversion of individual Churches?

My guess is it's the same principle. It accepts them but the goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion.

The motivation for the change of approach does definitely entail a recognition that past tactics have not worked. But I'd to ask: is that all that it entails? I'd like to think that it is also motivated by a switch to a more ecumenical mindset.

Yes but you have to define 'ecumenical' here, because Catholicism, like Orthodoxy, claims it's the true church so a relativism that says all churches are equal and true is out of the question. (Why 'ecumenist' is a fightin' word in online Orthodoxy.)

Catholics may have solicited individual conversions more in the past (see below), but Catholicism's plan has always been to persuade all the Orthodox to come back

we would have to leave first to come back. Of course, the Vatican's aim has always been that we leave the Catholic Church of the Holy Fathers without turning back.

That he did: St. Constantine I the Great.His successor Constantine XI died out of Catholic communion. His niece returned to it in Third Rome, marrying into and thereby solidifying the heir of Constantine I, Ivan III.

Not only most of the Ukraine including Kiev and its metropolitan but Byelorussia too. Great Russian expansion and persecution shrank it later, to Polish Galicia (Lvov), now the western Ukraine, the Ukrainian Catholic Church's homeland today.

It shrank to Polish controlled lands long before any Russian set foot in Ukraine, or expanded over one square foot. The Cossacks never signed on, and they had restored the Metropolitanate and Holy Synod still within the reign of Sigismund.

Worth noting: attempts at individually converting the Orthodox that flopped. Namely in Orthodoxy's main homelands, Greece and Russia. Both about 100 years ago. The French Assumptionist order of priests set up Greek Catholic churches in Greece, which failed. There are more Roman Riters in Greece (on islands Italy used to own) than Greek Catholics. In 1890s Russia some intelligentsia read their way into Catholicism so the Pope started the Russian Greek Catholic Church. Whopping failure, next to nobody joined, plus the Communists crushed what little of it there was.

Back to 'a more ecumenical mindset': I think there's been a development of the Catholic view that born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. A nuance that's fair to the Orthodox without compromising Catholicism's true-church claim. Namely, changing from the view that while Orthodox have valid bishops, they have no jurisdiction even over their own people, and that while the Orthodox Eucharist, etc. are valid, the state of schism makes receiving those sacraments a sin. Not what Catholicism says now. The majority opinion is that born Orthodox, not personally guilty of schism, have episcopal jurisdiction, apostolic authority, and the grace of the sacraments among themselves (people who never personally left the Catholic Church receiving those sacraments in good faith). They're an estranged part of Catholicism.

The recent story about Macedonia reminds me of 19th-century Bulgaria. The Orthodox there wanted to be independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople as part of being free from the Ottoman Empire (Turks), so they approached the Catholic Church, which set up a Bulgarian Catholic Church. But the Bulgarians mostly left that and became then-uncanonical autocephalous Orthodox (a rift with C'ople until 1946); the Bulgarian Catholic Church was/is tiny. Maybe in Macedonia the Catholics didn't want to get screwed again. Come to think of it, the Macedonian Orthodox Church wasn't started as part of Macedonian independence. I think Communist Yugoslavia started it in 1967; it's uncanonical in Orthodoxy like the Bulgarian Church used to be.

you mean the Vatican can learn new tricks?

Btw, the parallel between Macedonia and Bulgaria is apt.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Catholic Church isn't trying to double-deal you with a claim that Greek Catholics don't have to accept some Catholic defined doctrines. It doesn't say that, because it can't. It can't be relativistic.

I'd like to chime on this point. Yes, it's true that the pope doesn't say to potential Catholics "If you want to come into Catholicism, you don't need to believe [IC/PI/UOJ/etc]."

But it's important to see that from (at least) two different perspectives: not only a CDF doctrinal-orthodoxy kind of perspective, but also from an "ecumenical" perspective. Or more specifically, it's important to keep in mind what the Balamand Statement said, "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other" (i.e. from Orthodoxy to Catholicism).

Born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt. So while of course Catholicism accepts individual conversions, quietly, because of the true-church claim, Catholicism's goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion; with that in mind, it doesn't solicit individual conversions.

How about the conversion of individual Churches?

My guess is it's the same principle. It accepts them but the goal is to bring in the Orthodox communion.

An Arab tale:On a cold day a hunter went out and came upon two birds perched on a tree, and the cold had made his eyes tear.As he raised his gun, one bird said "Don't worry! He won't shoot! Look at his eyes! He's weeping!"The other, seeing the finger on the trigger, said "Don't look at what his eyes are doing! Look at what his hands are doing!"

Good catch. Thanks for the reminder. Rome didn't want the Ukrainian Catholic Church to make this aggressive move of moving their headquarters to Kiev. But they did and got away with it. It doesn't go against Catholic doctrine but to me seems insubordinate; maybe the Major Archbishop responsible should have been fired. It goes against Catholicism's strategy with the Orthodox. But considering their recent history - being outlawed and having the government trying to push them into the state-controlled Orthodox church - Ukrainian Catholics understandably aren't interested in good relations with the Orthodox. I don't like what they've done either, and they probably won't get what they want, becoming the country's state or at least national church, with the majority. But I admire their guts. (Their 20th-century story of survival and resurrection is heroic. How to survive modern persecution. Take notes.)

They have guts, I'll give them that. And not just because it gives the Vatican headaches.

Though I'll take my notes from the Georgian, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarus and Polish Orthodox, who survived modern persecution, and the major brunt of it.

« Last Edit: May 14, 2013, 11:38:27 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Anyway, regional churches: the first unia, founding the Ukrainian Catholic Church in 1596, was at first very successful: basically most of Russian Orthodoxy outside Great Russia (Moscow). Not only most of the Ukraine including Kiev and its metropolitan but Byelorussia too.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Anyway, regional churches: the first unia, founding the Ukrainian Catholic Church in 1596, was at first very successful: basically most of Russian Orthodoxy outside Great Russia (Moscow). Not only most of the Ukraine including Kiev and its metropolitan but Byelorussia too.

Arguably the Melkite one, in 1724 (?), was too. (Until I read this thread I didn't know the claim that they didn't become Catholic until 1729; I think the Catholic narrative says '24.)

No, the Catholic one says the 1st century AD. As for the Vatican, it wasn't until 1744 that it granted its pallium to the schismatic church.

I'll take your word for it, but what does the giving of a pallium have to do with anything?

In reality, nothing. According to the Vatican, everything:

Quote

IV Lateran council c. 5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The way I look at it, Florence was a continuation of the conversation that started at Lyons II, and that conversation has just been resumed in the last half-century. But not resumed very easily, mind you, because Florence threw a pretty big wrench in the works ... as did a couple of things in the aftermath of Florence, most notably the Union of Brest and the like, and also the en masse addition of 8 councils to our list of ecumenical councils (effectively back-dating the schism to the 11th century).

I guess what it boils down to is the question, was Brest et al the direction for "the conversation" to go after Florence? Or were Brest et al a sidetrack from "the conversation"? (Or was the Union of Brest problematic only in the fact that it didn't get enough of the Orthodox, but fine in principle?)

It was not until 1484 that the Council of Florence and its union settlement was formally rejected by the four Eastern patriarchs (C'ple, Alez., Antioch, and Jerusalem). However, it was treated, in Constantinople as a "dead letter," right from the appointment (by the Sultan) of Gennadius II Scholarios as patriarch some months after the fall of the city. The previous patriarch, Gregory III (Mammas), patriarch from 1443, had gone to Rome in 1450 -- some write that he abdicated before he left -- and a small group of anti-unionists chose one Athanasius II as patriarch, but he was not recognized as such by the emperor. After the fall of the city, Rome continued to regard Gregory as Patriarch, and when he died in 1458 or 59 the Pope appointed Cardinal Isidore of Kiev, and then, after the latter's death in 1462, the famous Cardinal Bessarion of Trebizond. After Bessarion's death, all of his successors in the "Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople" were Latin bishops. This patriarchal title was left vacant after 1948, and officially abolished in 1964It was not until 1484 that the Council of Florence and its union settlement was formally rejected by the four Eastern patriarchs (C'ple, Alez., Antioch, and Jerusalem). However, it was treated, in Constantinople as a "dead letter," right from the appointment (by the Sultan) of Gennadius II Scholarios as patriarch some months after the fall of the city. The previous patriarch, Gregory III (Mammas), patriarch from 1443, had gone to Rome in 1450 -- some write that he abdicated before he left -- and a small group of anti-unionists chose one Athanasius II as patriarch, but he was not recognized as such by the emperor. After the fall of the city, Rome continued to regard Gregory as Patriarch, and when he died in 1458 or 59 the Pope appointed Cardinal Isidore of Kiev, and then, after the latter's death in 1462, the famous Cardinal Bessarion of Trebizond. After Bessarion's death, all of his successors in the "Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople" were Latin bishops. This patriarchal title was left vacant after 1948, and officially abolished in 1964.

The way I look at it, Florence was a continuation of the conversation that started at Lyons II, and that conversation has just been resumed in the last half-century. But not resumed very easily, mind you, because Florence threw a pretty big wrench in the works ... as did a couple of things in the aftermath of Florence, most notably the Union of Brest and the like, and also the en masse addition of 8 councils to our list of ecumenical councils (effectively back-dating the schism to the 11th century).

I guess what it boils down to is the question, was Brest et al the direction for "the conversation" to go after Florence? Or were Brest et al a sidetrack from "the conversation"? (Or was the Union of Brest problematic only in the fact that it didn't get enough of the Orthodox, but fine in principle?)

Catholic strategy today is based on the principle that born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt regarding schism so they have apostolic authority over their own people, so Catholics hold off on soliciting conversions individually and corporately short of the Orthodox communion coming in. That said, 'Brest didn't get enough of the Orthodox, but was fine in principle' sounds right.

Regarding 'we are the true Catholics', yes, Orthodoxy claims it's the true church. Catholicism agrees that at heart the East is Catholic. The Georgian and Armenian patriarchs are the Catholicos; duh. That said, if you ask an American, Greek or Russian cab driver to take you to the nearest Catholic church, you won't end up at St Demetrios or St Vladimir's. In Russian, for example, Russians are православные; католики are foreigners.

The way I look at it, Florence was a continuation of the conversation that started at Lyons II, and that conversation has just been resumed in the last half-century. But not resumed very easily, mind you, because Florence threw a pretty big wrench in the works ... as did a couple of things in the aftermath of Florence, most notably the Union of Brest and the like, and also the en masse addition of 8 councils to our list of ecumenical councils (effectively back-dating the schism to the 11th century).

I guess what it boils down to is the question, was Brest et al the direction for "the conversation" to go after Florence? Or were Brest et al a sidetrack from "the conversation"? (Or was the Union of Brest problematic only in the fact that it didn't get enough of the Orthodox, but fine in principle?)

I would argue for a sidetrack. Brest and Ungvar/Uzhorod arose as much for political/imperialist purposes as "religious" ones. The loyalty of substantial pockets of Orthodox population within Catholic Kingdoms and Principalities assured a permanent source of political mischief from the point of view of the western rulers. By promising the clergy the status of Catholic priests (at least in theory) under their protection they could use the clerical class to control the masses. Keep in mind that within the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom and that of the Magyars, unlike the Roman priests and monks, the Orthodox clergy were tied to the local manors as little more than uneducated serfs. The social status as Bishops was elevated as well. Different times, different issues. Only centuries later was Greek Catholicism in east Europe viewed as a cultural bulwark against the 19th century pan-slavists and Russian imperial expansion. Likewise the Greek Catholic faithful took seriously their rights under the unions to remain distinct from the Roman Catholics who lived among them for centuries. In the regions where little if any Roman Catholic populace lived - as in Greece and the Russian heartlands, it was far easier to portray the Latins as horned beasts than in the borderlands where you lived among them or least knew them in the neighboring village or town. In America when the Roman bishops wouldn't leave the Greek Catholics in peace the status quo changed.

Was Rome complicit? Of course. But I don't believe for a minute that the Vatican today views 17th century uniatism as a model for much of anything. As an aside, I suspect that if Orthodoxy was not preoccupied with the Ottoman Muslim and Tatar issues and the consolidation of Tsarist power vis a vis the Boyars et al in Russia, that the east would not have engaged in its own reverse uniate strategy. But alternative histories are fiction so one can really know.

Anyway, Young Fogey is right about the survival of the underground Greek Catholic church being an example. So is Isa regarding the survival of the Orthodox. Rather than compare and "rank" a level of relative persecution, it seems preferable to contemplate in wonder and awe about the survival of hope, Faith and love in the face of the most brutal of oppression by the Godless or the infidel.